BREAKING….BREAKING….VICTOR SPEAKS!

Victor- or someone claiming to be Victor, has posted here at The Mitch and Nan Show.  Though I am certainly not positive, the style of writing seems to indicate it is indeed Victor.  

Here is his first comment:

 

I was referred to this post by someone who had seen it.

I am puzzled where you got the email from LS addressed to me which finishes with the line “Don’t post this email anywhere. Please”

If you got it from LS’s blog then that is one thing. I have not visited his blog since the moment I quit it after my last post there.

But if you did not get it from his blog I want to make clear that I never showed that email to anyone.

May I also make clear that his email is misleading as it suggests I asked him the name of the driver.

I have never asked him the name of the driver. I had written a letter to him in which I referred to his various recent public statements about the driver as well as his challenge to the media to get him a national TV slot to confront Obama in exchange for releasing the name of the driver.

In particular, I asked him in view of all his public statements whether he is still sure that the driver is in the USA and that he can produce him? If the driver has left the country is it because of pressure from this case? I also asked if Obama knew the driver?

I got no reply to my email or to my previous emails about the Donald Young questions.

When he made his post on his blog about the driver, I made a comment suggesting that to make his offer meaningful he should offer to produce the driver to the media either openly or through the good offices of his lawyer. He blocked that post and made two or three comments about how I was causing him legal problems (and he changed and edited his comments on my comment in the space of thirty minutes).

When I said goodbye to his blog, he sent me the email you have published above. If he always intended to publish it despite his request that I not, then it was deliberately misleading. He has tried to make it seem by his email that I had asked him for the name of the driver.

But within an hour he sent me another email. In the second email he made some personal remarks and then purported to give me complete disclosure on the name, whereabouts and other circumstances of the driver to the point that he said I now know more than anyone else about that subject. He did not bind me to confidence but said, sarcasticlaly and bitterly, I assume, that I could now go to other sites and join his opponents and share the information he had given me.

The next day he sent me another email regretting that he had given me the information, claiming that I had misrepresented who I was, and had tricked him into giving the information by using Jay’s comments on Donald Youg and my motive was to make money from a book. He copied that email to a third-party.

I received yet another email from someone in his camp asking me to return the email about the drive and expunge it from my records.

Even if he had asked me to keep that second email confidential I would not feel obliged to do so. I had never asked for the name of the driver nor any of the details he supplied me. I had already quit his blog. I had already made my own deductions about the driver. So I would not allow an unsolicited email to silence me.

I will not reveal the content of his second email about the driver unless I find it necessary to counter any more false statements he makes about me. And what I say about the driver was my own conclusion even before I read his unsolicited letter. His letter has not persuaded me otherwise.

I believe he cannot produce a driver as a witness. I believe his lawyer has never had contact with the alleged driver.

The only legal problems I was causing him was to put him in the position where he had to explain that he could not deliver the driver to the media or through his lawyer. In view of this his offer to “name” the driver was empty. It was also contradictory. Because the only public reason he has given for not naming the driver was that it would subject the driver and his family to intrusive journalists and bloggers and politicial operatives. So I suppose naming him on national TV would not?

Other people made similar suggestions to mine on his blog and he did not block their comments. So I assume that he was predisposed to block me because of the three letters he had gotten from me over the previous three days asking questions about Donald Young and the availability of the driver.

On the issue of what information he has given publicly on the Multani name I’d refer you to a comment on his blog some time ago - possibly in March - with an IP which was apparently from the waterfront in Chicago in which someone claimed to know about the Multani person and his alleged problems with immigration.

In a second comment, Victor wrote the following:

May I just add why the business of the driver is important? The reasons people give for believing his story about November 1999 are the following:

1. It is consistent with LS character and history:

2. Obama has never denied it and nobody among his supporters has produced an alibi:

3. It is not inconsistent with what is known of Obama’s moral relativism, especially in 1999, and not inconsistent with his admitted use of drugs that, in his own words, put him on the road to addiction in his late teens, and consistent with rumours about his private life:

4. LS account had an internal consistency and some extraneous evidence - receipts etc

5. He claimed to have the limo drive as witness to the drug purchase and consumption and the sex and all the other aspects. He claimed to have kept in touch with the limo driver and that his lawyer has all the necessary information. He claimed he could produce the witness.

6. His story was consistent in individual radio interviews and across several interviews as well as consistent with his blog posts.

I believe Nos. 5 and 6 are no longer true. No. 6 was the keystone to everything else.

No. 5 was also very important because it gave people assurances that eventually he would produce a witness. They also felt that his lawyer would not allow him to say that he could produce the witness, unless that were true. In fact, the only statements I have seen from the lawyer in public and in letters refer to the legal actions for defamation as being an attempt to discover who is behind the attacks on LS.

After reading this and we will do further commenting, it seems obvious that Mr. Sinclair is finished.

A NOTE TO VICTOR:

Victor, if this is truly you, and you MUST understand our hesitancy, all nonsense aside, I am sorry that you have been a victim of this man.  I can tell by your writing and your sincerity that you have truly been duped and I do not like that for any man.

Please feel free to continue visiting here.  You will NOT BE PERSONALLY ATTACKED as there has been enough of that already.  (Plus…we still have Lard-Ass to attack and there is ENOUGH FATTY TUNA THERE FOR EVERYONE!)

Comment away my friends but remember in our home, when there is a guest, we try to treat them with respect.

CIAO!!!

 

(Note to Editors, etc….Please do not approve Victor’s comments or disclose ANY personal information about him.  I will not approve of that here.  I believe, though misguided, the person who wrote these comments is sincere…..Nan)

NOTE:

There were also two comments by Lard-Ass himself.  They have been “approved” and are available somewhere for your reading.  What a douche!

 

ALERT….ALERT….

I just received another first time post from “SISTER ROSETTA”.  THIS IS GETTING WAY TOO STRANGE FOR MY TASTE.

I WILL BE DOING ALL ADMIN ACTIONS FOR THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

MITCH

Here is Sister Retardetta’s Post:

 

sisterrosetta
patcupo@gmail.com |

I have not the faintest idea what you all are talking about regarding Victor. I find it very hard to believe that Victor would turn his back on Larry.

Please see the following threads over at hillaryclintonforum.net

hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=84405

hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=96994

hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/showthread.php?p=98982

There is nothing to fear in allowing your readers to access what others are posting on this issue.

SisterRosetta

 

This is a different email address than the last one I received from her.

M